McBroom v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution

Filing 14

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 , OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 , GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION AS TIME-BARRED 8 , AND TERMINATINGTHE INSTANT CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5-4-2017. (de)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

Leonard McBroom,
Petitioner,
Case No. 3:16-cv-514
Judge Thomas M. Rose

v.

Warden Madison Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

DECISION
AND
ENTRY
ADOPTING
REPORT
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 11), OVERRULING PETITIONER=S
OBJECTIONS
TO
MAGISTRATE=S
REPORT
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, (DOC. 12), GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
HABEAS PETITION AS TIME-BARRED, (DOC. 8), AND TERMINATING
THE INSTANT CASE.

On December 27, 2016, Petitioner Leonard McBroom filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus, attacking the Ohio Parole Authority’s delay in “not finalizing revocation process within
[a] reasonable time period as mandated by Ohio Revised Code § 2967.15(B) and Morrissey v.
Brewer [408 U.S. 471 (1972)]” (ECF 3, PageID 29). Respondent Warden Madison Correctional
Institution filed a Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition as Time-Barred. (ECF 8.) In his Response
to the Motion, Petitioner makes it clear that he is attacking the “subject-matter jurisdiction of the
Ohio Adult Parole Authority to continue to incarcerate him.” (ECF 10, PageID 161.) On March
21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz filed Report and Recommendations, (Doc. 11),
suggesting that the Court grant Respondent’s Motion to Vacate, and deny Petitioner a certificate of
appealability to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. (Id.) Petitioner has filed an Objection to

Report and Recommendations. (ECF 12).
As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has
made a de novo review of the record in this case, taking into consideration Petitioner’s objections.
Upon said review, the Court finds that Petitioner=s objection, (ECF 12), to Report and
Recommendations, (ECF 11), is not well taken and is hereby OVERRULED. Wherefore, the
Court ADOPTS IN FULL the Magistrate Judge=s Report and Recommendations. (ECF 11).
Motion to Dismiss Habeas Petition as Time-Barred, (ECF 8), is hereby DENIED. Because the
resolution of Petitioner’s motion would not be debatable among reasonable jurists, Petitioner is
DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY.
DONE and ORDERED this Thursday, May 4, 2017.

s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE